Trigger Warning: this post has nothing to do with schools, CRT, or even politics. But read on to discover the incredibly cool financial market developments happening right now, but not fully understood. Note that I previously wrote about crypto developments in "Why Conservatives Should Love Cryptocurrencies."
Imagine you could own a $1,000 portfolio that looked like this:
$200 New York Yankees
$375 Picasso's Guernica
$125 Ranch land in Wyoming
$250 David Bowie's song catalogue
$100 James Bond's Aston Martin
$75 Kyle Rittenhouse's prospective legal settlements
Each of these positions represents equity ownership. Crazy? Think again, because it's coming fast. These are all assets of varying sorts and there is no reason they each couldn't have fractional ownership in the form of crypto.
You probably heard about the U.S. Constitution almost being purchased by 17,437 random people. While they didn't win the bidding, that's hardly the point. They raised $47 million in seventy-two hours. Average donation: $206. (My son was in for $180.) This was all done using crypto currency as the medium of exchange.
Nobody had to hire lawyers to set up an LLC. Nobody had to hire a management team. No intermediaries required.
They came together in the form of a DAO—a Decentralized Autonomous Organization. Basically, a bunch of people buy crypto coins, pool them, and then decide what to buy and what to do with the asset after its purchase. The more coins you own, the more votes you get.
Then there's this.
A company called BlockBar is making it possible to buy crypto coins associated with uber-expensive bottles of rare liquor. If you own a coin, it's associated with a specific bottle. You can exchange the coin at any time for the bottle itself, which is stored safely.
Let me back up a moment.
By now, you've probably heard of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens). They burst on the scene about a year ago. Until recently, they were just a way to claim ownership of a digital asset, say, an electronic image like this one, 3DPunks #087:
You can be the official owner of this image for the low, low price of $2100. Alternatively, you can copy and paste it, like I did.
It's easy to see why some, including me, were skeptical.
More recently, though, NFTs have represented claims on a broader range of things such as experiences, access to parties parties, membership in communities, and such.
More interesting.
But back to BlockBar.
What they are doing is creating NFT coins for tangible assets, and that's where things get very interesting. And not just tangible assets, but theoretically any kind of asset. Team ownership, legal settlements, intellectual property. Basically anything that has a value.
So, why not just own the bottle Macallan 40 itself?
Because most people who buy these bottles are investors who never drink them, and the coin is more liquid, should they choose to sell. To quote BlackBar's CEO, "You can always exchange the digital asset for the physical, but it is easier to sell the digital asset—you don't have to physically move the bottle, ship it all over the world, and have it be authenticated over and over again by auction houses selling it."
If the Constitution DAO's investors had succeeded, any of them could have sold out at any point, perhaps making a profit.
If this all has a familiar ring, it should. Once upon a time people used precious metals as currency. But lugging gold and silver around was cumbersome and dangerous, so currencies that represented a claim on metals were created. The U.S. had the gold standard as well as silver certificates. How much easier—and safer—it became to engage in commerce.
What we're witnessing now is an evolution in this concept—the digitization of ownership, all made possible by the underlying security of the blockchain. All sorts of previously illiquid assets, many of which have been unattainable but for the very rich, will soon be liquid and accessible to even the smallest investors.
Just imagine the new forms of investment and speculation this opens up. Think the Yankees just made a bad trade? Sell! Think Kyle Rittenhouse will end up owning CNN and MSNBC? Buy! Just want to brag about owning James Bond's car? Buy!
(The Kyle Rittenhouse angle is interesting, because if you think about it, anyone could sell "themselves," or more specifically, their future earnings stream. There could be an entire subsection of NFTs where you trade in the future prospects of famous people.)
Anyone with even a few dollars to invest can play in the most rarefied of markets.
Guernica
But this has benefits for the very rich as well. Let's say you currently own Guernica.
(You don't, because it hangs in the Musea Reina Sophia in Madrid, but let's assume that away.)
I'm guessing Guernica is worth $150 million, but hey, it doesn't go with your new decor and you want to sell. You'll have to go through Sotheby's or Christies and pay them 10% of the auction hammer price, or $15 million. The process will take many weeks, and the painting will have to be shipped to the auction house for authentication and viewing. It's all very time consuming and expensive.
This is why trading in and out of things like paintings really doesn't happen much. The friction is too great.
But, if your ownership were digitized on the blockchain, you could sell it tomorrow. Or, if you prefer, sell 49% and still maintain controlling rights, which means Guernica still hangs over your fireplace.
Expenses go down, liquidity goes up. These are compelling things. And they both add significant value to any asset.
Digital stock markets are already being created, such as Open Sea. Most of the listings are, frankly, digital effluence like 3DPunks #087. But tangibles will be there soon enough. Coinbase is planning an NFT market, and they may quickly become the market leader. (Full disclosure: I own shares.)
Sure, all this will take some time. Owners of things will have to decide to go digital, or they'll have to sell to DAOs. But an increasingly varied number of assets will find their way into the crypto space.
Here's hoping our regulators don't feel the need to screw it up. They tend to get very uneasy when confronted with new things they don't fully understand. Digitization is highly democratic, and decentralization is something we all should embrace, particularly conservatives and libertarians.
Digital Picasso ownership? Already here. Not Guernica, but a painting called "Fillette au beret."
Buckle up, it's going to be fun.
UPDATE (2/24/21): Making the Naked Dollar look quite prescient, a DAO is currently raising money to but the Denver Broncos.
Okay here's what I don't get. Sorry if I sound like a simpleton. But what do you GET for "owning" something, like a Picasso painting, under this system? Do you get something to hang on your wall? Extra time to look at the painting? What happens when the person who has it on their wall no longer has the majority. Do the other 51+ percent get to vote on where it hangs now? Is the painting a corporation? Do you get free tickets to a game if you "own" the Yankees under this system? Do you get to decide who gets on the team? What qualifies you to make that decision? What do you get, besides the ability to claim that you "own" something? It's all just too ephemeral to me.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get anything. Because it's a scam.
DeleteEverything can be manipulated if we are not vigilant. Google is most pernicious. The problem with Google is not privacy which is a deliberate distraction as privacy is even used to justify abortion. The problem is monopoly censorship as most other search engines, even while feigning privacy, use Google's database. Page rank is the source of rancor because it amplifies noise instead of producing objective results. Google scanning major libraries has caused many libraries to close or reduce their collections. Google also betrayed their deja news franchise by increasingly limiting and deleting usenet newsgroup archives. Neurotic password changes and twister verification dances actually expose security by forgetting, to only make users more mentally unstable so AIDA marketing model shouting can coerce them, just like date rape drugs. How does Google demand insecure Javascript on its web sites but mess up Java on Android? NGINX, indeed! If you ask their self driving car to take you to Dallas will it curate you to Austin instead? In 1978 Peter Grace pushed cap gains differential which spawned Apple, Amgen, Genentech and Microsoft, but Rostenkowsky reversed it, annihilating the patient capital model of Bessemre, Doriot, Termans and Thermo Electron, spawning frivolous ventures like Google and Facebook and even worse, decimating the American Beauty Rose of industry with LBOs and the elimination of NBS/NIST standards.
ReplyDelete